DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I think it should be shown what types of murders there are every years. How many of those daily mass shootings are committed by criminals/gang members/etc that own their guns illegally. Here's the definition of "mass shooting:" an incident involving somebody firing a gun where more than three people are injured. That's "injured." Fatally or non-fatally. And that includes the shooter. So if I shoot four people in the foot, including myself..."mass shooting." THAT'S why it's a dishonest and sensationalized statement. It purposefully implies that the gunning down of 30+ people with assault rifles is equivalent to casual, nonfatal violence. I'm not going anywhere. You asked a blindingly stupid question and I answered it accordingly. I am going to do that from now on with you "From now on?" You imply this is a new thing. You've been giving blindingly stupid answers to everyone's questions for years now. But your greater self-awareness is good, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So...Manzanar makes perfect sense to you? That's quite the leap of logic. I think you've been conversing with gator a bit much. It's rubbing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Drones are already legal and our government doesn't have chemical weapons. I know it's off topic, but the bolded part is not true... we have plenty of chemical weapons and continue to develop them despite treaties against that sort of things. So there is not one gun owner in all of Europe? Are you really saying this? Zero, never have been Blatantly incorrect. Switzerland (29% of households have guns) ... must not be part of Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Here's the definition of "mass shooting:" an incident involving somebody firing a gun where more than three people are injured. That's "injured." Fatally or non-fatally. And that includes the shooter. So if I shoot four people in the foot, including myself..."mass shooting." THAT'S why it's a dishonest and sensationalized statement. It purposefully implies that the gunning down of 30+ people with assault rifles is equivalent to casual, nonfatal violence. Did you mean four people are injured? I'm not going anywhere. You asked a blindingly stupid question and I answered it accordingly. I am going to do that from now on with you A stupid question? Once again it was a question asking you to clarify an assertion YOU made. So........clarify. Where do you some up with the statement that no one owns guns in Europe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 So........clarify. Where do you some up with the statement that no one owns guns in Europe? He made it up, clearly. It's demonstrably untrue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 He made it up, clearly. It's demonstrably untrue. That's the whole thing. It's the stupidest thing he's ever said which says a lot. I'm just wondering what his point was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Here's the definition of "mass shooting:" an incident involving somebody firing a gun where more than three people are injured. That's "injured." Fatally or non-fatally. And that includes the shooter. So if I shoot four people in the foot, including myself..."mass shooting." THAT'S why it's a dishonest and sensationalized statement. It purposefully implies that the gunning down of 30+ people with assault rifles is equivalent to casual, nonfatal violence. Casual, non-fatal shootings of four or more people! Brilliant Tom! Wow, obfuscation to the max! Clap, clap, clap.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) He made it up, clearly. It's demonstrably untrue. Ask the 77 teenagers in Finland if Andres Breivik owned a gun. Oh wait you cant because they were all shot to death. (RIP) its another stupid ignorant statement he has failed miserably on making his point, again. Edited December 3, 2015 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 I know it's off topic, but the bolded part is not true... we have plenty of chemical weapons and continue to develop them despite treaties against that sort of things. Blatantly incorrect. Switzerland (29% of households have guns) ... must not be part of Europe. Yeah, I should've said "is not supposed to have." That's my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Yeah, I should've said "is not supposed to have." That's my bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 You are the one being dishonest. You think it should not be shown how many gun murders there are each year because it happens every year? That's retarded! You are a screwed up person Zero, never have been BS. Here's a lollipop reference for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Switzerland 45.7 per hundred people Sweden 31.6 Norway 31.3 France 31.2 Austria 30.3 Germany 30.3 Finland 29.1 Greece 22.5 Latvia 19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 17.3 Belgium 17.2 Czech Republic 16.3 Luxembourg 15.3 Slovenia 13.5 Denmark 12 Italy 11.9 Spain 10.4 Russia 8.9 Portugal 8.5 Slovakia 8.3 Belarus 7.3 Georgia 7.3 United Kingdom 6.6 Bulgaria 6.3 Hungary 5.5 Netherlands 3.9 Poland 1.3 I propose the next POTUS do the Obamamama flim-flam and create the Affordable Protection Act which would require all homes to have a gun, and they will be fined by the IRS if they do not prove that they have one. If you like your guns, you can keep your guns - period. Every American that needs a gun will have their ammunition bill lowered by $2,500 on average. If you can't afford to own a gun, you can buy one on the government established exchanges where you will qualify for a subsidy. Gun safety classes will be mandatory in K-8th grades, and practical Gun Range training will be mandatory in grades 9 - 12. Passing the course each year with a grade of B+ or higher will be a requirement for grade advancement and eventual High School graduation. The emperor in chief has established the precedent as have the Supremes. Face it Libs, you could be screwed on your own petard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 BS. Here's a lollipop reference for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country Switzerland 45.7 per hundred people Sweden 31.6 Norway 31.3 France 31.2 Austria 30.3 Germany 30.3 Finland 29.1 Greece 22.5 Latvia 19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 17.3 Belgium 17.2 Czech Republic 16.3 Luxembourg 15.3 Slovenia 13.5 Denmark 12 Italy 11.9 Spain 10.4 Russia 8.9 Portugal 8.5 Slovakia 8.3 Belarus 7.3 Georgia 7.3 United Kingdom 6.6 Bulgaria 6.3 Hungary 5.5 Netherlands 3.9 Poland 1.3 I propose the next POTUS do the Obamamama flim-flam and create the Affordable Protection Act which would require all homes to have a gun, and they will be fined by the IRS if they do not prove that they have one. If you like your guns, you can keep your guns - period. Every American that needs a gun will have their ammunition bill lowered by $2,500 on average. If you can't afford to own a gun, you can buy one on the government established exchanges where you will qualify for a subsidy. Gun safety classes will be mandatory in K-8th grades, and practical Gun Range training will be mandatory in grades 9 - 12. Passing the course each year with a grade of B+ or higher will be a requirement for grade advancement and eventual High School graduation. The emperor in chief has established the precedent as have the Supremes. Face it Libs, you could be screwed on your own petard. Stop obfuscating the facts. Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Here's the definition of "mass shooting:" an incident involving somebody firing a gun where more than three people are injured. That's "injured." Fatally or non-fatally. And that includes the shooter. So if I shoot four people in the foot, including myself..."mass shooting." THAT'S why it's a dishonest and sensationalized statement. It purposefully implies that the gunning down of 30+ people with assault rifles is equivalent to casual, nonfatal violence. "From now on?" You imply this is a new thing. You've been giving blindingly stupid answers to everyone's questions for years now. But your greater self-awareness is good, I guess... You are by far one of the dumbest posters on this board, and that's saying something, because a lot of people around here can barely read and write. You bring less than nothing to any argument, yet you contribute so frequently! You can be dumb or you can be annoying, but DC Tom, do you really need to be both? I understand you must be lonely but maybe you can just shout nonsense out the window for awhile like crazy old men used to do before the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Did you mean four people are injured? A stupid question? Once again it was a question asking you to clarify an assertion YOU made. So........clarify. Where do you some up with the statement that no one owns guns in Europe? Yes, "more than three" would be four. You are by far one of the dumbest posters on this board, and that's saying something, because a lot of people around here can barely read and write. You bring less than nothing to any argument, yet you contribute so frequently! You can be dumb or you can be annoying, but DC Tom, do you really need to be both? I understand you must be lonely but maybe you can just shout nonsense out the window for awhile like crazy old men used to do before the Internet. That is the definition of "mass shooting" that you are using when you say "there have been three hundred mass shootings this year." You could look it up, if you so chose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 I don't expect you to fix the problem. I do expect someone who takes to a public forum to rant about an issue to have at least a vague outline for the action they'd like to see taken. Saying you want more gun control isn't saying much of anything because no one really has any idea what that means. But apparently you're not even calling for that; you're ostensibly calling for people to form an attitude in favor of some undefined movement as long as it falls under the heading of "gun control." To take it a step further, even if one were to accept what you're proposing (to the extent you're proposing anything) you've offered little if anything to support your theory. I don't just mean you're lacking empirical evidence; you haven't even outlined a theoretical framework explaining why you think your solution would be effective. Instead you've presumed its effectiveness out of hand, jumped over rationale altogether, and have gone straight to moralizing and ad hominem attacks. Put differently, you've substituted moral superiority for logic and reason. So you're saying — because some stranger on the Internet didn't give you solutions on a nice enough plate, it's not worth considering? It's not worth doing? It's not worth reading up on? Your solution is, what? "Stop whining"? "Get over it"? "Well, nothing can be done about guns, guys, LA Grant on the TwoBillsDrive sub-forum didn't adequately convince me in a single post that doing something is better than doing nothing. Shootings that are clearly preventable will just happen forever and there's nothing we can do." What an entitled and lazy attitude you have here. Shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Casual, non-fatal shootings of four or more people! Brilliant Tom! Wow, obfuscation to the max! Clap, clap, clap.... That's THE DEFINITION. It's not my definition. But it is the definition you're using. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Yes, "more than three" would be four. That is the definition of "mass shooting" that you are using when you say "there have been three hundred mass shootings this year." You could look it up, if you so chose. That's not what I'm arguing with you about. I know the argument you want to have is to quibble about the definition of "mass." You also want to argue about the definition of "normal." Basically you want to argue semantics so you can continue to dodge the larger point. I called you out on that on Page 2, you had no response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Stop obfuscating the facts. Forward! So, we can get right to the screwing of the Libtards with their own petard? That might work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2015 Share Posted December 3, 2015 That's not what I'm arguing with you about. I know the argument you want to have is to quibble about the definition of "mass." You also want to argue about the definition of "normal." Basically you want to argue semantics so you can continue to dodge the larger point. I called you out on that on Page 2, you had no response. No, I want to encourage people to STOP DISHONESTLY SENSATIONALIZING EVENTS WITH MISUSED AND MISUNDERSTOOD DATA. You got all bitchy about there being "more than 300 mass shootings" this year without even knowing what that meant. You purposefully misrepresented data in an attempt to sensationalize the issue to make an emotional argument, because you can't make anything resembling a rational one. That is ENTIRELY relevant. You are lying, and you are ignorant, and you are basing your entire position on those lies and ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts